Tag Archives: cheating is bad

“It’s a fact of modern life that there is disparity and ‘Is it fair or unfair?’ is not a valid question.

It’s just the way it is, and you have to get on with it. People say it’s unfair when they don’t do anything to change their circumstances.”

A rich person <Ipsos interview>

=====================

“Quite a lot of people have done well who want to achieve, and quite a lot of people haven’t done well because they don’t want to achieve.”

A rich person <Ipsos interview>

===================

“She destroyed too many good things in society, and created too many bad ones, then left a social and moral vacuum in which the selfishly rich and unimaginatively fortunate could too easily destroy still more of what they don’t need and can’t see that everyone else does need.”

—-

Emma Darwin

============

Look.

I don’t begrudge the wealth, the uber-rich, their wealth.

But having glanced off of their uberish-richy Hamptons, Palm Springs, Monte Carlo and south Florida world a couple of times in my life I would suggest they live in a fantasy land, an alternative universe, from the rest of us. In this land of theirs they have a view of the world, and the people who do not live in their world, which is … well … kind of warped.

I do feel semi-qualified to share my view on this because while I have certainly had enough wealth to own a nice house, go on nice vacations and not worry about paying bills I have also sat up at night worrying about how the rent would be paid the following month and using credit cards to get through stretches of time.

I thought about this for the first time in a really long time after I read a story about how the wife of the US Treasury Secretary <Steven Mnuchin multi millionaire businessman and Yale graduate> posted a picture on Instagram which she hashtagged all the designer labels she was wearing.

And then some woman, @jennimiller29, replied: “Glad we could pay for your little getaway #deplorable.”

From there another multi-millionaire Trump deplorable slid down into the wretched hole of douchebaggery.

“Aw!!! Did you think this was a personal trip?! Adorable!” Do you think the US govt paid for our honeymoon or personal travel?! Lololol. Have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? Either as an individual earner in taxes OR in self sacrifice to your country?”

While that was just being a lower level asshat … she couldn’t just stop there:

“I’m pretty sure we paid more taxes toward our day ‘trip’ than you did. Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you’d be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours. [Curled bicep and a face blowing a kiss emojis].”

“Your life looks cute.” Snark alert! <suggesting … how quaint and ‘play the lottery every week’ your life is>

I could point out what a fucking uber rich narcissistic self-adulating pompous grown up rich kid this woman was for lashing out at some ‘less than’ person who dares criticize her … I will not. I will not because we should be clear … we just got a small glimpse of a discussion that happens day in and day out in anyone of the uber rich social circles as they hob nob with each other <kibitzing about the adorable peasants>. She just got busted. And it only happened because these wealthy assholes <people> mostly stay in their cocoon echo chambers and this one’s husband had the audacity to take a public servant position outside the cocoon.

But … on a separate note … is everyone connected to Trump obligated to be a douchebag?

Anyway.

I will absolutely suggest that the majority of us have no clue what the other ‘haves’ <even if they are really have–nots>experience. We live in our own worlds and, in general, have little clue what the lves of people are like in income levels we do not share.

But the privileged wealthy are really out of touch.

This privileged wealthy class looks at accountability in a warped way.

Accountability always seems to be measured by accumulation of wealth and the trappings of wealth.

That is their measuring stick. And in their petty little gilded world it is the only measuring stick. Unfortunately that measurement doesn’t work outside their little world. And all it does is show they didn’t go to the same math class as the rest of the world … well … almost none of the same classes the rest of us went to.

Now.

To get some of my wording right today, while I was fairly sure what ‘wealthy’ <nice word for rich> meant, I wandered into my go-to book on words Hayakawa’s Use the Right Word.

Wealthy:

Affluent, flush, loaded, opulent, prosperous, rich & successful.

These are all possible synonyms.

In fact … rich is not considered a flexible term <unlike wealthy> because it is an either/or word – you are either rich or you are not … seldom is one spoken of as being ‘moderately rich.’ In addition … rich, unlike wealthy, is widely used in extended senses to mean full, pregnant or abundant.

==========

‘… a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’

—–

Oscar Wilde

===================

And, in fact, rich people are also inflexible. They are more focused on their own goals and desires. Research even shows that they also ignore people a little more <focused more on the trappings, materialistic aspects of their Life>.

“If you have more power and status, you may not have to care as much about what people are thinking and feeling; and also, if you’re in a resource-scarce environment, where things are a little more unpredictable and maybe a little more dangerous, it would be very adaptive to pay attention to others, how they’re feeling and what they’re going to do.”

I found a fantastic one-on-one interview research study conducted by Ipsos where they spoke with … well … rich people <earning $1 million a year to $10 million a year>.

What they discovered was a startling demonstration of ignorance. While they earned a lot of money and may of them made their money managing their people’s money they knew next to nothing about other people’s incomes. When asked to relate themselves to the rest of the population, these high-earners completely misjudged the magnitude of their privilege.

How much, we asked our group, would it take to put someone in the top 10% of earners? They put the figure at £162,000. In fact, in 2007 it was around £39,825, the point at which the top tax band began. Our group found it hard to believe that nine-tenths of the UK’s 32m taxpayers earned less than that. As for the poverty threshold, our lawyers and bankers fixed it at £22,000. But that sum was just under median earnings, which meant they regarded ordinary wages as poverty pay.

While people may haggle over some of the research thoughts the real takeaway should be the rich’s obliviousness to reality outside of their opulent cocoon.

Yeah.

The arrogance of the entitled rich is usually contained within their snake pit cocoon. In their cocoon anyone outside it is ‘poor little people who are quaint and aggravatingly jealous and don’t understand’ and within it is a mosh pit of excessive upmanship. Simplistically anyone outside their cocoon must be a ‘lesser than’ who can never understand what it is like within the cocoon.

They tend to be ‘opulent’ more than prosperous. They imply personal success … regardless of whether they put in the hard work to attain their riches or not … is found in the trappings, the imagery, more than the intangible aspects of character, attitude with regard to work & fair play and kindness beyond ‘donations & charity’.

And they use all their ‘trappings’ as a portrayal of ‘success’ to the rest of the world outside their cocoon. What I mean by that is it is incredibly hard to conceive of a rich person not considered successful by most people even if they have no redeeming value outside of opulence <and, yet, we can conceive of someone being highly successful but not rich>.

Simplistically … most of the hard work rich people do is to work hard at looking rich.

Which leads me to the ‘sacrifice equivalency.”

Whew.

This one is always a little hard to swallow.

Because the rich measure everything by money they measure sacrifice in the same terms. Sacrifice has little to do with self, in and of itself, but rather what was sacrificed from what the materialistic self could have gained.

It is a warped view of sacrifice stripping it of its most redeeming qualities to some naked monetary transactional measurement.

In their snake pit world it is a measuring stick.

In the real world it is a hollow definition of sacrifice.

======

“The excellence of a gift lies in its appropriateness rather than in its value.”

―

Charles Dudley Warner

=======

I say that because if you reread Mrs. Mnuchin’s post I would imagine, if you use the measuring stick I just offered, you would say she was offering a valid well intended response based on her world view. and in doing so she clearly outlined the fact her cocooned world has very little to do with the real world.

I could say I feel sorry for her … but I do not.

I hate that belonging to different social classes means we struggle to relate on a daily basis.

I hate that America’s top one percent of earners is earning 81 times the average of the bottom 50 percent.

I hate that research shows how the wealthy and the working classes really do live in different cultures and, therefore, see the world in different ways.

I hate that research shows, ironically, rich people rated themselves as more empathetic — a “better-than-average effect” — when in reality the opposite was true.

The results “show that people who are higher in socioeconomic status have diminished neural responses to others’ pain. These findings suggest that empathy, at least some early component of it, is reduced among those who are higher in status.”

<Michael Varnum, neuroscientist at Arizona State University, a 2015 study on empathy>

I hate that success & wealth is significantly Life pre-programmed and that general mobility is a myth.

===========

“We now live in a separate economy, we live on a separate level to the vast majority of people in the country. We don’t send our kids to the same schools, we have more choice over schools, we have more choice over health, we have more choice over where we live, we have more choice over where we go on holiday and what we do for our jobs. And we live in a completely different world to the people we live next door to.”

———

a more thoughtful rich person at the end of the Ipsos interview

===============

Look.

Every one of us lives looking at Life thru the lens of what we know. Someone who has only lived in poverty can only see poverty or ‘slightly more’ and someone who has money been uber rich can only see wealth <and what comes with it>. And even those in-between are kind of trapped in what they know.

Shit.

Even I who has wandered between comfortable wealth and ‘holy shit I have no money’ views lowest income differently than someone who has only lived in lower income — I always believe I will not be there forever. I even think the manager who earns $145k a year is more often than not oblivious to the Life choices of their $45k a year employee.

If something is all you have had, and is all you know, then that is what you are going to be in your head.

That said.

All of us know that success in Life can be found by persistent working, never forget to pursue some dreams and being kind & caring while doing it. Unfortunately some of us forget that … but the rich people almost always elevate the second and forget the third.

I tend to believe that we are all born equal but we are not treated equal and not everyone is on an equal playing field. I don’t say that so some people should feel persecuted just as I do say that so some people recognize that they had better, easier opportunities than others.

There is always a way forward incorporating kindness … always … you just have to find it and relentlessly decide to find it. Unfortunately it takes as much work as work itself.

I have to conclude, using the Mrs. Mnuchin public comment, that most rich people just don’t want to put in the necessary work.

I have to conclude most rich people are just douchebags out of touch with what we everyday schmucks deal with.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never has and it never will.”

—–

Frederick Douglass

=========================

“Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it.”

—

Benjamin Disraeli

===================

Well.

We don’t talk about power and people often beyond the tripe about how power corrupts people <as I have written … only people can corrupt themselves>.

So let me talk about the dynamics of power in business in a non-corrupting way. What I mean by that is … well … responsibility & authority. Whether anyone really admits it or not once you attain a senior position in a business you have gained power. Now.

This power is most often not embodied in any nefarious way but rather it is simply a reflection of responsibility & authority.

You have power over decisions.

You have power over people.

You have power over funds and their allocation.

You even have power over ideas … which ones die and which ones live.

Most of us do not see this as some all empowering power or even eye it with an authoritarian belief. We do not view it as some “center of power” but rather we see it is actually more like a linear tool <or hammer> selectively used.

Now.

Wielded well … power can look like a central source of authority but ‘wielded well’ is actually a flurry of linear tools, like playing whack-a-mole, applied to establish selective moments of desired behavior and progress <and this flurry actually creates the sense that there is a larger centralized power>.

But here is the thing.

Once you have gained authority you are extremely hesitant to concede the ‘power.’ This hesitancy actually shifts into full-on “hold on with ragged claws” if you have mastered <or you feel like you have mastered it> the ‘useful flurry of power’ in appropriate ways.

Partially I think this is the allure of … well … owning the initiative – or having some power over initiatives. This shouldn’t be undersold. It is exhilarating and … well … powerful. In business while we measure results and report ad nausea the most satisfaction most leaders get is not in measuring parts & pieces but rather the totality of what they do. and once you taste that satifation you have no desire to conceded anything that could keep you from possibly attaining that satiscation again.

Is that holding onto power? Sure. I guess.

But I tend to believe it is more “I know how to do my shit and I want to keep ding that shit” attitude than any ral bad ‘power trip’ type attitude.

================

“Never relinquish the initiative.”

—–

Charles de Gaulle

============

Unfortunately … people on the outside just don’t see it that way.

And it is understandable they may not see it the right way because I believe it was Geoffrey O’Brien who said ‘history unfolds as always in the midst of distraction, misunderstanding, and partially obscured sight-lines.’

That is how the authority version of power works. It unfolds in the midst of distraction and partially obscured sight lines.

That is how authority works. It unfolds in the midst of a flurry of choices, decisions, delegations and doing <all blurry and, yet, creating a sense of central power>.

Regardless of what it is … or what it looks like … once attained we tend to not want to relinquish it – we do not want to concede it.

It must be demanded to be relinquished.

And here is where it gets tricky. Because even if there is a demand to relinquish, and you do have to relinquish <you get fired and have to take a ‘lesser authority job’ or you get demoted or you simply shift jobs with a different authority level> … we hate to concede it.

I mention that because that is one reason why older senior people who decide to take a lower titled job <even with the best intentions and capability to actually ‘do the job’> can struggle or just be a pain in the ass.

It’s not that they truly are a pain in the ass it is simply … well … they have felt the satisfaction of authority and dislike the loss of that authority.

All that said.

Power concedes nothing <unless the power owner is stupid, foolish or arrogant> … but as someone smarter than I said once … it always reveals.

Authority reveals.

And maybe what I am suggesting today is that authority can actually reveal character and ability. And once you have seen what you can do, what you are capable of doing and what you like to do … well … it is not an easy thing to conceded or relinquish.

And, let me be clear, you can actually be good with authority and effective with use of power and can still be demanded to relinquish it.

It is a falsity to suggest that being good at something means you will always be able to do it <or someone will always seek to have you do it>. you can be forced to relinquish authority, even if you are good at it, for a variety of reasons in business <ranging from well-intended to absurd>.

It is natural to want it again if you were demanded to relinquish it.

Anyway.

I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to claim someone is ‘power hungry’ or ‘protective of their power’ … and mean it in a bad way. Having authority and enjoying authority and wielding authority well is addictive <or maybe just like having ‘the perfect buzz’>.

Is it wrong to be hungry for that? Whew. Sure doesn’t seem wrong.

I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to judge a person who has had a senior role and has decided to assume a position with lesser responsibility & authority because … well … once you have had authority it is really really hard to relinquish it.

While power concedes nothing I would suggest that the feeling of authority used well tends to not want to concede anything.

===========

“Life has many ways of testing a person’s will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything happen all at once.”

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

===============

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign.

The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified intelligence experts and foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it.

Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There.

I said it.

The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken.

This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While I knew marketing people would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior’ it was easier to focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have.

What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well.

The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible.

I could open this presentation by suggesting Clinton campaign ran a slightly less than effective as it could have marketing campaign but I would have to showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win. I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line.

And before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless.

Block by block the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge?

It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before.

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population.

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging people to do things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that.

And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power.

In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that.

This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

In the category of “sometimes you just cannot make this shit up” … today the Russian president, who has ‘surprisingly’ <not so surprisingly> dismissed the claim that Trump disclosed classified information in a recent meeting with Russian diplomats/espionage agent, has offered to hand over records of an Oval Office meeting to Congress.

This is rich.

This would be comedy gold <assuming this wasn’t our presidency and our country>.

The idea that America would be able to gain transcripts of a meeting held in the White House oval office to clear up what actually happened from Russia is … well … absurd.

Not to mention the fact they could possibly even have transcripts <which assumes, I imagine, they would have taped the entire conversation> is … well … terrifying.

Personally, I think Putin is having fun at America’s expense <i.e., he is trolling us>.

Personally, I think why the hell would anyone in the US congress go to Russia to get a transcript and find out what ‘theoretically’ happened.

Personally, I think we would have officially entered into some alternative universe if a Russian transcript was necessary to “100% confirm” a Trump story.

Personally, I think the Russians haven’t stopped laughing since Trump won the election.

Trump shares classified information in a moment of braggadocio <does anyone really believe he would do so ‘strategically’? — no>.

That is the thought … and the moment … which we are all faced with today <again it seems>.

……… young Trump ………..

We are faced with a headline which, anonymous sources or not, on the face of it is believable.

No one … not even the ones with their heads so far up Trump’s ass they can only see darkness … can say it doesn’t have a hint of believability given everything we know about the man.

He said something while boasting. He was just being the non-thinking loudmouth we have watched for decades.

Well.

This is when the birds come home to roost for all the despicable ‘fake news’ and ‘alterative facts’ and all the other lying bullshit.

This is the moment we wanted to have someone from the White House step up to the plate and say, unequivocally with no word parsing, “not true” and we would all breathe a sigh of relief and say “whew, okay.”

But we are past that point.

We are now at the miserable moment when you do not know who to trust.

============

“He doesn’t really know any boundaries. He doesn’t think in those terms.

He doesn’t sometimes realize the implications of what he’s saying. I don’t think it was his intention in any way to share any classified information. He wouldn’t want to do that.”

Anonymous White House Advisor

===================

You want to trust the journalists … and, yet, you don’t really want to <because if they are we have more proof our President is an incompetent asshat>.

You want to trust the only people left in the administration who actually seem trustable <Tillerson, McMaster> … and, yet, their words ring a little hollow.

You want to trust the president because … well … he is the president … and, yet, that train has already left the station.

To be clear … what Tillerson and McMaster said in defense of Donald J Trump are not quite lies. They are just incredibly well parsed words expressing either truths which are not really the issue at hand or half truths about what the real issue is <but it does not really matter because within 12 hours Donald J Trump just partially undermined what they said anyway>.

To be clear … what the Washington Post wrote is most likely quite truthful. They offer incredibly parsed words expressing thoughts run through a paranoid filter that “we better not be wrong.”

<note: Does that mean Washington Post never gets things wrong? No. But a story this big this means an editor is going to be extremely careful before running it. I would suggest the reason to trust the Washington Post, and other major journalists at other papers, here is twofold <1> they have high journalistic standards that lead them to being accurate much more so than other media options and <2> they know if there is something wrong in their reporting, other reputable news sources will be all over their shit in a second>

But, to be clear … what I may think doesn’t really matter … because echoing across America today is a basic feeling of “yikes, this sounds bad, but I do not know who to trust.”

That is what Trump hath wrought.

Some very good people <Tillerson, McMaster, maybe even Spicer, some prominent politicians, etc.> have had their reputations tainted by the Trump slime – enough that people of seemingly good character are being doubted.

We have reached a point, a point which the current Presidency is desperate to offer some honesty & truth to slow down the downward spiral … a downward spiral in which we realize that not one of uscan assume that any one of them is going to say some simple truth.

The only truth we know is that once having manipulated the truth, once having misrepresented the truth, once misdirecting us from the truth … that person is most likely to do it again.

You need not lie as colorfully and openly as the President to be seen as someone not to be trusted. His depth & breadth of lying offers little room for his associates to do the typical word parsing they may be accustomed to.

Journalists have realized this dilemma and the real journalists are rising to the occasion seeking to limit parsing and innuendo and offering as much starkness as possible <that is a path to success>.

I could argue that we are having a crisis of character but at the moment I woke up today realizing we are in the miserable moment when you do not know who to trust.

I have spent months telling everyone Trump is not competent to be president, I question his competence as a business leader in general … and that good CEO’s do not act this way.

But today? Today I can only sigh … and think about what a sad world to live in where when you trust no one you end up believing everything & nothing at exactly the same time.

I could quite easily argue that the most fundamental thing necessary to be successful in Life and in business is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.

In other words … the ability to see what they see, think what they think and understand why they do what they do.

If you have that ability … or maybe it’s a skill … it fosters understanding, ability to compromise, enables at least the possibility to shift thinking and … well … it actually encourages you to rethink some things and maybe unlearn some learnings.

I do sometimes look at what is happening in the world and how we seem to have stopped listening and I think of Auden’s line from a poem he wrote about Iceland. I think about it and sometimes believe we are all out at sea floating amongst tides, waves and storms <rarely calm> looking at the ports with names. And, yet, we can never envision that the ports may look out at us and not only view us differently … but also the seas upon which we float.

By maintaining our personal view we do not listen, therefore we do not debate <we only lecture> and we certainly never compromise or find some common ground. Instead we all bob around the vast ocean just trying to keep our own head above water and yell at each other for stupidly bobbing around in the water the wrong way <or not the way we are>.

No wonder the ports have a different name for the seas then we do. We call them Black, Caspian, Mediterranean, Baltic, Caribbean , etc.. Ports most likely look out and … well …”a place upon which fools who do not listen to each other float” is what I guess they would name it.

I word it that way because … well … it seems like sometimes we forget that we are all trying to figure out a way of keeping our heads above water.

Now.

I imagine the reasons why we forget all the commonalities and why we ignore what each other truly has to say is not simple, nor just one thing, but rather a thousand reasons scattered around like quarters on the floor just waiting for someone to ick up. I would bet I have sloppily discussed many of these reasons on enlightened conflict.

But I can truly only think of one thing that trumps all the thousand reason to not do what we should be doing – moral imperative.

That may sound high too falutin’ for somethings as simple as ‘listening to each other and discussing’ but truly it is a moral imperative that we try and solve this.

We are better as people if we hear an Ann Coulter and Bernie Sanders debating, in a civil fashion, what they believe and why.

We are better as people if we hear a Wilbur Ross and Robert Reich debating , in a civil fashion, what they believe and why.

We are better as people when the most liberal of institutions open their ears and eyes to the most conservative of believers and listen … really listen … and discuss and debate … and realize that most often our differences reside in tactics, possibly in some strategies, but rarely in objectives.

I believe this can happen if we embrace the moral imperative as people.

Ah.

But there is that ‘moral’ word I keep tossing into this mix.

What a divisive word for a word which should be a unitor.

Beyond the entire civil discourse and listening and finding common ground discussion it seems to me that a shitload of us are actually embracing what I believe is called ‘moral condescension.’ It’s not that we are just condescending with each other about views, opinions and beliefs … but all of that crap is grounded on an underlying sense of moral condescension <’not only do you have the wrong belief & attitude but you do that because you are not a morally strong as I am’>.

Not only is condescension of any type irritating but moral condescension ratchets up irritating to … well … an incredibly irritating level.

For the most part most people don’t really have to deal with it because most of us either keep our moral ‘high horse’ in our pocket or share it with friends and acquaintances of like mind.

And most other people know our views and just avoid us if they disagree.

What that means is <a> there is a significant lack of any discourse and <b> when there is we fairly quickly move into our ‘moral condescension mode’ which … well … irritates the other person/people.

I do ponder why we hate moral condescension so much. I mean condescension in general is irritating but with morals and morality it just has a tendency to bring forth a little anger.

I would offer to everyone that maybe it suggests we should feel some guilt for some indulgence in the vagaries of life. It suggests that maybe we feel too much … well … about ‘muchness’ without truly examining the barebones of shit without all the muchness attached.

The truth is that, for the most part, if you strip away the condescension it only suggests some examination of what we focus on and what we do not focus on … who we possibly deprive something of in what we may truly subconsciously be indulging upon as something ‘we earned’ <this idea, to me, is at the nucleus of the condescension>.

Uhm.

You do not earn indulgence.

You earn money & respect <as well as some other nice and not so nice characteristics I imagine>.

I say that because regardless of whether you are the moral condescension giver or the moral condescension receiver you should be stepping back and stripping away the indulgence aspects <simplistically … I earned that huge SUV and deserve it … even though some people cannot even afford taking a bus> and try viewing all moral decisions and people’s views in the most stripped down version.

I say that because naked we kind of all have the same problems and issues in a harsh world — it is just a matter of degree in most cases.

I say that because we kind of have a moral obligation to the fellowship of all humankind and ‘fairness’ <whoever you would like to define that> for all.

Look.

I fully understand as we bob around in the sea of survival <and self beliefs> we cannot have moral obligations to everyone around the world. It kind of seems to make more sense to understand we actually only truly have moral obligations against the people we come up against. T

he ones who metaphorically enter into our moral space.

This suggests a concept of proximity or that proximity matter in morality.

Uhm.

Well, yes and no.

First … the closest proximity is yourself – you can control your own actions and what you think, do and say.

Second proximity then would be the ones closest to us – physically or mentally.

Third proximity would actually be ‘the world.’ And what I mean by that is you have a choice to be vocal with regard to what you see as right or wrong. It’s kind of like the moral version of the butterfly affect. If enough voices are raised even Horton will hear the Whos in Whovile.

I say that because distance diminishes the affect your own moral obligation can have a real impact.

But maybe what that proximity idea I just shared with you means is that we have some moral obligation to intersect, with ideas, and listen and discuss with those who our space interconnects with.

Here is what I know for sure.

We do not listen to each other enough these days. And we certainly do not discuss things with an eye toward commonalities anymore. Our differences seem incontrovertible and our civility has diminished to such a point we don’t even attempt to engage in discussion because of such certainty of lack of civility we do not even believe it is worth the attempt.

That is a shame. And in Bruce terms … “it is bad.’ The lack of any attempt is, at its worst, ignoring a moral imperative for the greater good.

We would all do better if we recognized that ‘the ports have names for the seas’ … and they may be different names than the ones we have given the seas.

==========

Historical note about the line I opened this piece up with … and a thought that sometimes mistakes can lead to a different way of looking at things and thinking about things … and … well … in the end — doing something different than you planed.

W.H. Auden describes somewhere how he had written a line, in a poem about Iceland.

That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” … which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege.

All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.

Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.

Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.

Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.

Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position.

Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway.

We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

============

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

—

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

=============

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

—-

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them imply because … well … we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based <someone should remind our President of this>.

Now.

I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be … well … responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However … stupidity aside … I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things.

Here is the real truth:

=========

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

—-

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

=====

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis peaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens … a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech … Hitler was bad, genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak … and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out … but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white, intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural … and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is … well … right … all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <and our current President has created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wants to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn … what is a privilege and what is a right … all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it.

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

It is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges.

They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any sect, or they may be atheists.”

—–

George Washington

=============

Ok.

I have commented several times on what I would consider a needless “travel ban” but Donald J’s insistence to issue a new improved travel ban under the guise of national security has inspired me to comment one more time.

When the best thing anyone can say about some initiative you are attempting to implement is:

… call new travel ban ‘a good overhaul’ that will ‘stand legal scrutiny’

… well … you are in trouble. I don’t really ever want the main reason to do something to be “it is legal.” I would much prefer my number 1 reason everyone wants to do something be … well … it is a damn good idea.

Look.

I am all for national security.

And I do believe a president has the right to take some extraordinary actions with the best intentions of citizens in mind.

But that is where I hesitate on this … my sense is that this whole travel ban is in the best interest of one citizen … Donald J Trump and his ego.

Since the 80’s death in the US by terrorism is around 3500 plus <including 9/11> in the same time there has been 60.000 work place related death and 900.000 death by gun violence.

Read any report you want and you can find little to point to these countries as ‘terrorist pipelines to America’ as well as anything that would suggest our current vetting process and immigration policy is flawed enough to permit an influx of terrorists.

But I imagine all could be resolved in my mind with answers to two basic questions:

You were urgent in the initial ban with regard to our security and concerns with vetting … what specifically have you done in the past month to shore it up <because I assume it was important enough you didn’t just take your ball home sulking>?

What can you do now, in a pause, which you couldn’t do in the past 4 weeks? <what specific benefit does the ‘pause’ give us>

Answer those well and I will reconsider my view on this and maybe even get off your back.

Here is what I know as a business guy.

Empty promises fulfilled … remain empty.

Most business leaders are very careful with regard to what they promise their employees. And then … even when promising something … they are even more careful about fulfilling any stated promise. The latter is maybe even more important than the former.

Nothing kills a business leader faster than asking employees to do something simply to do something <and it is not a priority need for energy>.

That has always been the flaw in “doing what you said you would do.” if what you say is wrong, stupid, silly or ignorant than doing is simply a reflection of … well … all those things.

In the business world we call that wasted energy or a ‘completed wrong.’

This is when a business leader forces action simply to prove a point.

This is when an organization starts losing respect for a leader.

In today’ business world most businesses run so lean being able to effectively prioritize resources and energy is possibly the most important skill a leader can bring to an organization.

Employees do not suffer fools lightly.

And maybe that is why I will continue to crush Donald J for his lack of leadership skills.

Yes. He made a stupid promise while campaigning.

Yes. He tried to fulfill the stupid promise stupidly a month ago.

But he had an opportunity to right all wrongs in one fell swoop in this place and time … and a good leader would have seen the opportunity.

All he had to do was stand up in front of a microphone and a gazillion cameras <and hopefully a teleprompter> and said …

“I continue to believe the original ban was the best thing for America but I honored the decision made by our judiciary system and honored the ‘ban pause’ … but I, and we, did not pause in our efforts to keep people safe & secure … over the past week the following departments <name them> have done these things <list them> and have already begun implementing my <incredibly stupidly called> extreme vetting process. While it would have been easier for the people protecting you to have done this during a pause they never wavered in their determined effort to close the holes in the vetting process and I have decided to put the entire travel ban on hold until there may come a time where we identify a need to pause to further improve the process.”

And in one simple long paragraph explanation he has fulfilled his promise and stopped any wasted energy … and even gets some points on leadership.

Did he do this? Are you fucking nuts? I bet this didn’t even cross his mind.

Leaders always have choices when they make a decision.

With regard to this one I sense the main Trumpian business flaw – transactional versus strategic.

My fear is Trump views immigration as a transaction between the ‘incoming’ and the country – “here is what you are buying and if you buy it you have committed to it.” This comes to Life most easily in how he discusses a ‘merit based’ immigration policy but it also hides among words like “people who value our values and think America is great.”

If I view immigration transactionally <unless I view it through a ‘lifetime value lens’> I will inevitably misjudge the value of the transaction.

Immigration is more like a long term contract in which both parties have commitments.

“I am offering you a long term contact in which I will provide you rights, privileges, freedoms and opportunities <that is my promise in this contract> and you will provide a commitment to the Constitution, working hard and embracing the freedoms found with american society <with respect>.”

In a mutually beneficial contract both parties receive value.

In a mutually beneficial contract both parties are equal … one party is not subservient to the other.

Look.

I do believe America is great <for a variety of reasons>. But I have said this before and I will say this again … to make America even greater I shouldn’t be keeping people out I should be strengthening the idea, and values, of America to a point where the right people self select wanting to be part of the idea of America.

And an unintended consequence <actually an intended one> if I approach immigration that way is I also strengthen the idea of America for current Americans which strengthens who we are, what we believe and how we behave.

In the end.

This revised travel ban is stupid.

It has all the signs of the kind of thing a petulant leader does simply to make a point.

And, worse? It diverts energy & resources at a time where we should be assessing energy & resources as ‘most efficient use.’

He is a horrible business leader taking his horrible lack of leadership skills into the presidency.

I want people to think about our politics here in America, because I’m telling you guys that I don’t know of a single nation in this history of the world that’s been able to solve its problems when half the people in the country absolutely hate the other half of the people in that country.

This is the most important country in the world, and people in this body cannot function if people are offending one another.

—

Marco Rubio

===================

Well.

Polarization can create some pretty foul conduct.

Polarization can bring out the worst in people.

Polarization can create stillness within turmoil when movement within teamwork is needed <and desired>.

And.

Polarization within leadership is a virus that infects everyone in the organization … not just in leadership.

Warren gained all the headlines where Rubio actually had the words we should have all been listening to. It is maybe 8 minutes long and worth every second.

Please note that I believe this message is more important than just one directed toward the Senate … it is a message which all Americans should take note of.

We are fortunate to have the privilege of freedom of speech & thought and we should embrace that freedom as one to permit healthy discussion, debate and disagreements … all of which should enable healthy, positive decisions.

Freedom is a tricky thing. In the United States of America we have the unique opportunity to “criticize a president without retribution.” <as past President Obama said to a group of military people at MacDill Air Force base>.

But our freedoms are being challenge by Trump and his attitudes & behaviors in ways we haven’t really seen in a very very long time.

The Trump Affect ripples way beyond simple executive orders and specific actions that will have an impact on the people of the country. The more dangerous ripple effect is one of attitudes & behaviors.

Within this dangerous Trump affect ripple, the freedom to freely criticize is a little less secure … and the way we criticize, debate & discuss in the Trump era appears to be one of not listening, not respecting and not believing that there could possibly be a way to do something differently than the way “I believe.”

Trump and his merry little band of morally corrupt liars suggest that there is no middle ground for “ladies & gentlemen to disagree with ladies & gentlemen”<note: this is a rip off of the Ritz Carlton motto>.

The Trump Affect has trickled down into his direct organization … the congress.

And within that ripple Republicans either embrace the bully opportunity or simply privately watch in horror as leadership decorum and leadership example <which, by the way, IS important as impressionable children and adult seeking cues on how to be leaders watch closely>.

And within that ripple Democrats screech & gnash their teeth in impotent frustration over not only having no power to shift the tides of change but also because, in their heart of hearts, they know this is not the way business should be conducted.

Balance has disappeared.

While people can bitch & moan that decorum, in the past, has only encouraged stagnancy & lack of action they should not confuse with what business is conducted and how business is conducted.

Just as I am more accepting of my high school football coach if we have a losing season but the players play with respect & dignity and go to class and show signs of growing up with a healthy personal responsibility … I am less accepting of the coach who permits poor behavior & lack of respectful competition even if they win more.

You can have all the good in this case. But balance has been lost.

In fact.

We should face the fact that balance deserted us the day Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.

And that is why Rubio’s speech is so important. Without actually saying it he suggests that we shouldn’t let Trump drag us down into some dysfunctional squabbling amorphous blob of indignant jerks.

=================

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.

Both are nonsense.

You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

———-

Rick Warren

==========

I like conflict and I think conflict is healthy.

It is a basic Life truth that conflict is the positive friction that often creates innovations and new thinking and new ideas.

But, as with most things in life, there are degrees of conflict.

The kind of conflict we need now, more than ever, is the productive type.

We need to better embrace the valuable contradictions in life.

Things like:

Smart and funny.

Silent but says a lot.

Liberal conservative.

Cynical optimist.

Oh.

And enlightened and conflict of course.

We need to better embrace the fact that contradictions are powerful.

They create a chemistry ending in positive friction <when done right> and the fire for innovative thinking and thoughts.

In general I believe contradiction not only make life & people interesting but they also forge the kind of decisions that become the iron construct for a solid culture, civilization and country.

We need to embrace that conflict is part of life and not treat it as only a negative thing.

Humans are neither passive nor stagnant. We move. We do. We think.

Combine that fact with individuals are unique <although they may group together> and inevitably there is some conflict. It can simply be healthy competition or it can be staggeringly evil intended activity <i.e. there will be conflict because your point of view and thoughts shouldn’t exist and I am going to extinguish them>.

We need to embrace the fact that conflict can be “managed”.

Maybe call it competitive camaraderie. I call it enlightened conflict. I believe if people know more about stuff <I don’t really believe it needs a technical term> then conflict will be conducted with knowledge.

I would suggest that ignorance, and being close minded, guides conflict toward evil interactions … while knowledge guides conflict to responsible interactions.

Lastly.

We need to embrace that enlightened conflict is really some version of pluralism.

A pluralism in that it encourages, and embraces, freedom to learn and freedom to think different thoughts.

In the end I imagine what I really care about are people’s actions. They can remain mute as far as I am concerned as long as their actions respect others opinions and others lives and meets global responsibilities.

Look.

It is silly to think that conflict doesn’t exist as part of our natural behavior <I apologize to all the “why can’t we all get along” groups>.

It is silly to think that friction between beliefs and causes is not the spark for something better.

It is silly to think conflict and friction is not good.

Good conflict leads to positive friction and ideation and evolution of ideas.

But it needs to be conducted with respect. Respectful disagreements & debate lead to two things:

Positive friction.

Enlightened conflict.

The first is based on curiosity plus friction equals better ideas and thinking.

The second is lack of ignorance plus conflict equals respectful competition.

We here in the United States have an incredible privilege … a freedom to say what we want and disagree and criticize whomever we want. We shouldn’t abuse that privilege by not understanding that it creates good conflict which enables ‘gooder’ ideas.

Marco Rubio did something in his speech which I endorse wholeheartedly … he tried to make an impact on his own little corner of the world … encouraging positive friction for enlightened conflict.

Marco Rubio had a stellar enlightened conflict moment … and more people should see it and listen.

=============

“Enlighten the people, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

“She destroyed too many good things in society, and created too many bad ones, then left a social and moral vacuum in which the selfishly rich and unimaginatively fortunate could too easily destroy still more of what they don’t need and can’t see that everyone else does need.”

—-

Emma Darwin

============

Well.

Oh.

How easy it is to overlook moral responsibility.

Sigh.

A lot of presidential executive order type shit is happening which, taken one by one, represent some viable policy discussions which should happen … but as a whole … reflect we are now in a struggle for the soul of America – a struggle for our moral core.

Our President does not appear to have a soul of integrity & dignity only a core of ‘win at all and any costs’ nor does he appear to believe America has a soul other than a platitude of ‘patriotism’ <which he seems to think is made up of solely of military, law & order and power> nor does he appear to be centered on any moral imperative beyond ‘winning’ <and looking impressive & strong>.

Regardless.

This, simplistically, is a discussion between “the win justifies the means”versus “the means justifies the win.”

In all candor I am not a bleeding heart liberal nor do I espouse mamby pamby milquetoast spineless jelly fish behavior. I believe there is a time to stand with strength, there is a time to be competitive, there are winners and losers and not everyone should get a trophy and that being nice isn’t an imperative with regard to how you play the game or be competitive.

That said.

How you play the game matters.

And I can almost 99% guarantee the American Symbolic Chief, or our President, only cares about how you look while you play the game <the ‘trappings as it were> and whether you win.

Now.

I have several proof points with regard to his lack of soul and moral imperative but the one I go to is the one he has consistently espoused “I am open to waterboarding <torture> because they are playing with different rules than we are and are killing us.”

This is “so if they are cheating, we can cheat to”logic <I am sure his military school would be proud of that logic>.

He uses this logic … well … on everything and with everyone.

This is not some dilemma created by the ravages of war.

There is no dilemma.

Your competition does not dictate how you decide to play the game … you decide how you want to play the game.

Okay.

Don’t like that example?

How about stealing someone’s oil as compensation for having sent soldiers to fight.

This is kind of like saying “we sent police to your home to protect you and they will take something from your home as they leave because you owe it to them.”

“We should have kept the oil when we got out,” Trump said about the U.S. involvement in Iraq. “Had we taken the oil, we wouldn’t have had ISIS.”

Uhm.

Pillaging is illegal <violates the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War and the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War>.

And, yet, our multi-millionaire trying to play being a President insists it wouldn’t break international law.

====

Muir: You’ve heard the critics who say that would break all international law, taking the oil. But I wanna get to the words …

Trump: Wait, wait, can you believe that? Who are the critics who say that? Fools.

Muir: Let, let me …

Trump: I don’t call them critics. I call them fools.

====

Morals? What morals?

Soul? A soul empty of anything but “I believe what I believe” and “what I want is what is right.”

Uhm.

That constitutes a lack of soul.

Sigh.

But let’s get back to the soul of America just so we are clear.

When we discuss building a wall on our southern border we should be reminded that everyone who sails into New York City passes by the Statue of Liberty with these words on it:

—

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The New Colossus By Emma Lazarus

—

“your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”

These are some powerful words. Those are some words you can imagine would find a nice warm home in a soul.

I absolutely hear the anti-immigration people loud and clear … and while I hear Trump and his wall and “a country has to have borders” I would argue he is being simplistically tangible and that he would be better served, as America would be also, if we approached this viable argument by attempting to construct a stronger mental/ideological national construct so that more people are likeminded in attitude <beyond simply coming to America to build prosperity>.

By the way.

Trump is going to be trapped by his ‘welcome if you are productive’ <money is everything> crap in that the criteria for citizenship is not whether you create wealth but rather whether you embrace the constitution, the idea of America and the freedoms it embodies. His ideology would suggest you could be a terrorist but if you are a productive terrorist who maybe owns a small business … well … you are welcome <but he is not smart enough to recognize that trap>.

Regardless.

While some social lawyerly types will most likely come out of the woodwork and condemn my suggestions on how we could build a stronger ideological construct bear with the thinking:

I wrote this thought back in April 2010 … but … bring back the Pledge of Allegiance <pre-Eisenhower version> as a school behavior. It was Eisenhower who added “one nation under God” … eliminate it and have all kids in all schools say the pledge of allegiance. What was made my man can be unmade by man. Let’s reestablish some national civic pride in who and what we are … and let people have the freedom to believe in whatever God they want to believe in.

Make English the national language. What the hell. Why not? Half of American born citizens speak crappy English so why not make it mandatory that all 330 million people have to speak crappy English if you want to be an American citizen.

Making voting mandatory. It is one of the greatest privileges we, as a country, offers. If you want to live in America than you must activate one of your greatest privileges.

Heck.

I have a couple more but this gets the point across. America was born of immigrants and we open our arms to those who seek to embrace not just prosperity opportunity but more importantly to be able to live within the freedoms we offer. If you want to live here you want to live within that construct.

<note:

I feel compelled to mention that while I advocate what I just stated I am also fairly confident that a fairly significant number of American born multi-generation Americans would fail to pass that test I just outlined>

Next.

Terrorism and immigrants.

Study after study after study <I know President Trump doesn’t read> states, unequivocally, an immigrant is less likely to commit a crime than a nonimmigrant American citizen.

Study after study after study <I know President Trump does not read> states, unequivocally, you are more likely to be terrorized or shot by an American citizen than an immigrant.

But … you know what?

Smarter people than I have tried telling people all the facts but either no one listens, or no one cares or everyone is just too scared that immigrant-driven terrorism to believe it.

And when you are scared, for any reason … valid or invalid … you can decide to do some fairly unreasonable actions.

This non-dilemma is captured in this recent, simple, comment exchange online:

What would your thoughts be if someone in your family had been killed by ISIS? It’s easy sitting in the comfort of your own armchair to take such a moral high ground

====

I am reminded that it was Plato who suggested democracies would eventually descend into dictatorships as a result of the need to ‘protect freedoms’ within the democracy.

We need to think about this and think clearly.

The truth is that we everyday schmucks face shit decisions like this almost every day in our jobs.

If I do not do this I will lose my job <and how will I support my family>.

If I do not play by the same rules those cheaters are playing I will never get that promotion <and how will I ever pay for my kid’s education>

If I protect this idea I may lose my job <and how will I survive without food on the table>.

This is not easy shit.

Freedoms, especially American freedoms, are an incredible gift which not many other citizens have. We often overlook their infinite value as we assess Life from an individualistic survival standpoint.

And you know what? It is fair that we do so.

And you know what? It is times like this where we everyday schmucks, who may be smart but recognize that there are a shitload of people out there smarter than us and able to see the ‘long game’ and the repercussions of decision better than us, need to trust someone else.

Do I want to get blown up by some ignorant asshole believing they are making some statement that will change the arc of history? No. of course not.

Am I willing to get blown up knowing that I never sacrificed the greater good, that maybe I touched upon the best version of who I could be as a person and that maybe, just maybe, in my death the people who remain will see the value in Life is in how you lived it and not just in what you achieved? Yeah. I would.

America is an idea.

America is an idea lived out by people.

America is an idea lived out by people who embrace the soul of the idea of which America is founded upon.

With our new President I recognize we are now in a struggle for the soul of America – a struggle for our moral core.

I am personally determined to take up this struggle in any way I can … and anywhere. That, to me, is the patriotic thing to do.

And I will do whatever I can in my little corner of the world. I will fight back by showcasing individual norms which I believe should help guide societal norms … better than the ones our current President offers.

With that I ask … where is John Kasich, where is Mitt Romney, where is George Bush, where is Condeleeza Rice, where is Bill Clinton, where is even Ted Cruz <who I quasi-despise>?

Where are the people who do not exist in little corners of the world and who can stand up for the moral imperatives which make America great?